Search

This paper, while conceptual in nature, is informed by both research and practice. Exploring the “engagement interface” as the site for student engagement (SE), we offer a conceptual contribution in engaging with the Kahu and Nelson (2018) model by bringing in a fuller understanding of SE grounded in the higher education context rather than being uncritically transplanted from a compulsory education context. This involves consideration of the multiple facets of SE as well as the dynamic, shifting and multilocal nature of the construct. The paper then proceeds to enhance the details of the model, grounding them in a finer-grained reading of the literature and relating educational constructs to the model’s proposed “mechanisms” in a conceptually substantiated way. This further extends Kahu and Nelson’s aim of illuminating the “black box” of SE. Our third contribution is to practice by proposing tactics: informed by the literature, we invite practitioners to consider ways in which they can increase the likelihood of facilitating engagement with, and by, students more constructively.

Raw sequencing reads of ancient samples produced for this study have been deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive under accession no. PRJEB46830. Modern mitochondrial genomes generated as part of this study have been deposited in GenBank, accession nos. MZ846240 to MZ848095., Orkney was a major cultural center during the Neolithic, 3800 to 2500 BC. Farming flourished, permanent stone settlements and chambered tombs were constructed, and long-range contacts were sustained. From ∼3200 BC, the number, density, and extravagance of settlements increased, and new ceremonial monuments and ceramic styles, possibly originating in Orkney, spread across Britain and Ireland. By ∼2800 BC, this phenomenon was waning, although Neolithic traditions persisted to at least 2500 BC. Unlike elsewhere in Britain, there is little material evidence to suggest a Beaker presence, suggesting that Orkney may have developed along an insular trajectory during the second millennium BC. We tested this by comparing new genomic evidence from 22 Bronze Age and 3 Iron Age burials in northwest Orkney with Neolithic burials from across the archipelago. We identified signals of inward migration on a scale unsuspected from the archaeological record: As elsewhere in Bronze Age Britain, much of the population displayed significant genome-wide ancestry deriving ultimately from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. However, uniquely in northern and central Europe, most of the male lineages were inherited from the local Neolithic. This suggests that some male descendants of Neolithic Orkney may have remained distinct well into the Bronze Age, although there are signs that this had dwindled by the Iron Age. Furthermore, although the majority of mitochondrial DNA lineages evidently arrived afresh with the Bronze Age, we also find evidence for continuity in the female line of descent from Mesolithic Britain into the Bronze Age and even to the present day., We thank Steve Birch, Jenny Murray, and Sue Black for help with samples; Harald Ringbauer for advice on hapROH; and Joyce Richards for comments on an early draft. Excavations at LoN and KoS are directed by H.M. and G.W., EASE (Environment and Archaeology Services), grant funded by Historic Environment Scotland. M. Ni Challanain, M. McCormick, and D. Gooney undertook osteological identifications and sample selection. K.D., M.G.B.F, P.J., M.S., G.O.-G, A.F., and S.R. were supported by a Leverhulme Trust Doctoral Scholarship program awarded to M.B.R. and M.P. DNA sequencing was also supported by the UK Natural Environment Research Council Biomolecular Analysis Facility (NBAF) at the University of Liverpool, under NBAF Pilot Scheme NBAF685, awarded to C.J.E. whilst at the University of Oxford. P.S., M.P., and M.B.R. acknowledge FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia) support through project PTDC/EPH-ARQ/4164/2014, partially funded by FEDER (Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional) funds (COMPETE 2020 project 016899). PS was supported by FCT, European Social Fund, Programa Operacional Potencial Humano, and the FCT Investigator Programme and acknowledges FCT/MEC (Ministério da Educação e Ciência) for support to CBMA through Portuguese funds (PIDDAC: Programa de Investimentos e Despesas de Desenvolvimento da Administração Central)—PEst-OE/BIA/UI4050/2014. V.M. and D.G.B. acknowledge the Science Foundation Ireland/Health Research Board/Wellcome Trust Biomedical Research Partnership Investigator Award No. 205072 to D.G.B., “Ancient Genomics and the Atlantic Burden.” The ORCADES was supported by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government (CZB/4/276, CZB/4/710), a Royal Society University Research Fellowship to J.F.W., the MRC (Medical Research Council) Human Genetics Unit quinquennial programme “QTL in Health and Disease,” Arthritis Research UK, and the EU FP6 EUROSPAN project (contract no. LSHG-CT-2006-018947). The Edinburgh Clinical Research Facility, University of Edinburgh, performed DNA extractions and the Sanger Institute performed whole-genome sequencing. The Viking Health Study–Shetland (VIKING) was supported by the MRC Human Genetics Unit quinquennial programme grant “QTL in Health and Disease.” DNA extractions were performed at the Edinburgh Clinical Research Facility, University of Edinburgh. Whole genome sequencing was supported by the Scottish Genomes Partnership award from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government and the MRC (grant reference SGP/1) and the MRC Whole Genome Sequencing for Health and Wealth Initiative (MC/PC/15080). We acknowledge Wellcome Trust funding (098051) for the ORCADES whole-genome sequencing. J.F.W. acknowledges support from the MRC Human Genetics Unit programme grant, “Quantitative traits in health and disease” (U. MC_UU_00007/10). We also acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the research nurses in Orkney and Shetland, the administrative team in Edinburgh, and the people of Orkney and Shetland.

A key enzyme in brain glutamate homeostasis is glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) which links carbohydrate and amino acid metabolism mediating glutamate degradation to CO

Somatic mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations have been found in a subset of endometrial cancers (EC) from different populations. We have investigated the relationship between mtDNA changes and clinical and pathological variables of women affected by EC. mtDNA mutations were detected both in early (3/32; 9%) and in advanced (1/8; 12%) stages of uterine tumors. However, patients carrying the mtDNA mutations or the normal mtDNA sequence had indistinguishable clinicopathological data, including age, clinical stage, histological grade and type or depth of myometrial invasion. It is noteworthy that mtDNA mutations were not detected in hyperplastic endometrial tissues or in ECs coexisting with hyperplasia, nor in a single case of endometrial stromal sarcoma. LOH at the tumor suppressor genes RB1 and TP53 as well as p16INK4A alterations (LOH, gene deletion) were found in tumors carrying mtDNA mutations. These results suggest that somatic mtDNA mutations are detected in a subset of ECs, although they are unrelated to clinicopathological variables of cancer.

Twelve promoters of genes differentially expressed between humans and chimpanzees were tested for expression activity in culture cells. Seven promoters showed a significant difference in expression level between the human and chimpanzee promoter, but only three were in the same direction as the tissues, indicating that relevant expression differences between humans and chimpanzees will be difficult to predict from cell culture experiments or DNA sequences, Background It has long been argued that changes in gene expression may provide an additional and crucial perspective on the evolutionary differences between humans and chimpanzees. To investigate how often expression differences seen in tissues are caused by sequence differences in the proximal promoters, we tested the expression activity in cultured cells of human and chimpanzee promoters from genes that differ in mRNA expression between human and chimpanzee tissues. Results Twelve promoters for which the corresponding gene had been shown to be differentially expressed between humans and chimpanzees in liver or brain were tested. Seven showed a significant difference in activity between the human promoter and the orthologous chimpanzee promoter in at least one of the two cell lines used. However, only three of them showed a difference in the same direction as in the tissues. Conclusion Differences in proximal promoter activity are likely to be common between humans and chimpanzees, but are not linked in a simple fashion to gene-expression levels in tissues. This suggests that several genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees might be responsible for a single expression difference and thus that relevant expression differences between humans and chimpanzees will be difficult to predict from cell culture experiments or DNA sequences.